It is difficult to discern a current trend in prosecuting financial crime a judges' decisions run from lenient to harsh.
A city councilman pleaded guilty to felony forgery, but a superior court judge reduced the charge to a misdemeanor and ordered community service with probation.
A city administrator pleaded guilty to mail fraud in a scheme that bilked investors out of $3 million, a crime which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, but a US District judge gave him only five years probation and ordered $20,000 in restitution.
Political extremist Lyndon LaRouche was sentenced to 15 years in prison on a mail and tax fraud conviction that could have brought him 65 years.
However, two businessmen whose fraud resulted in the collapse of a savings and loan were sentenced to 15 and 12 years and ordered to make restitution of $6.8 million.
This was hailed by the prosecuting US attorney as a significant victory for the government in its efforts to punish those responsible for the savings and loan crisis.
Certain judges have sent similar clear messages at sentencing.
US Superior Court Judge Letts railed against the tolerance of some judges to white-collar crime as he sentenced a tax advisor to a 10-year prison term for orchestrating a multimillion-dollar tax shelter scheme.
Other judges have imposed harsh penalties, stating their hope that they would act as deterrents.
US District Judge Wood said the unexpectedly long prison term for Michael Milken was intended to make him an example.
